Here's the fourth segment on Keith Olbermann's Countdown Wednesday night and methinks this will play well here in forumland... at leastfrom our view... the repervies will have problems with it but who cares... rubbs pawws... flexes clawws...

and obtw... I urge you to call YOUR Congressman and urge him/her tosupport Rep Hinchley as well...

...snipOLBERMANN: Another expansion of the charges is being championed bya group of congressional representatives. They want to know whetherthe administration and the president in particular deliberately liedto them about the uranium claims, and in doing so, broke the law.The effort is spear-headed by New York Congressman Maurice Hincheywho, along, with 40 other representatives, wrote a letter toprosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asking him to investigate the reasonfor the current probe.

Namely, whether the president`s references to uranium in his 2003State of the Union Address and in other pre-war documents submittedto Congress violated two different statutes that the prohibit,quote, "knowingly and willfully making false and fraudulentstatements to Congress in documents required by law,"and, "conspiring to defraud the United States."

The scope of Representative Hinchey`s request does not stop at thepresident. He also wants Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate uraniumcomments made by the then-National Security Adviser CondoleezzaRice, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the defensesecretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Representative Hinchey joins us nowfrom Washington.

OLBERMANN: The administration retracted those 16 words from theState of the Union, the CIA blamed itself for letting them gothrough the vetting process. Would not some kind of deliberatenessto a falsehood there be hard to prove, considering that someone hasalready said this was an error and accepted blame for it?

HINCHEY: Well, I don`t think so. I think that it is clear thatwhat happened here was a falsification of information. Thatfalsification was done very purposefully in spite of the fact thatall the information that we have indicates that the CIA was tellingthe White House that there was no firm or solid, let alonedefinitive evidence that there was a weapons of mass destructionprogram in Iraq; and certainly no evidence that there was a nuclearweapons program.

And based upon a number of sources, including that provided byAmbassador Wilson as a result of his investigation in Niger, noevidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. Nevertheless, the WhiteHouse went ahead and sent that information to the Congress. Thepresident delivered it in his State of the Union Address.

In a speech in Cincinnati in October earlier that year, he mentionedthe mushroom cloud. And that image was used over and over again byhigh ranking administration officials to strike fear in people inthe Congress and I think across the country.

OLBERMANN: In your letter today, the examples that you cited fromPresident Bush were indeed, as you point out, made to Congress. Butthe one that is mentioned from Condoleezza Rice was made in anewspaper article. Colin Powell`s uranium reference was made inSwitzerland. Mr. Rumsfeld`s was made in a news conference. Howcould those statements be considered as breaking laws governingfalsehoods told to Congress when those statement were not made inCongress or to Congress directly?

HINCHEY: Well, we cite two different laws. One has to do withstatements made directly to Congress, or written informationdelivered to Congress. And those are the first two examples that wecite in the letter. There`s a second law that provides informationthat may be indirectly delivered to Congress by high-rankingofficials in the statements that they make with regard to verypertinent information which is currently before the Congress.

There were attempts being made at that time by members of theCongress to hold back on any war efforts in Iraq, because of thefact that the information was distorted and not clear. And becausemany of us believed and now are quite certain that the CIA and otherintelligence agencies were telling the administration that there wasno justification based upon so-called weapons of mass destruction,and certainly not on the basis of enriched yellowcake uranium comingfrom Niger into Iraq, no justification for going to war.

And so those statements are very important, the ones that you justmentioned. And they are, we believe, violations of federal law.

OLBERMANN: Your party was adamant in 1998 and 1999 that the entireindependent counsel process regarding President Clinton had been tosome degree corrupted and had become and attempt to hamstring anadministration by keeping it in a constant state of beinginvestigated, really for political reasons. Why would what you`reproposing to Mr. Fitzgerald not be deserving of the same kind ofcriticism from Republicans?

HINCHEY: Well, clearly, we`re in a very, very different state.We`ve now just lost 2,000 American servicemen and -women killed,17,000 more than that injured, many of them very, very seriously.Some people estimate as high as 100,000 Iraqis, at least half ofthem, civilians, women and children, killed as a result of thisaction. This is a very, very serious action.

In addition to that, the security of this country has beencompromised. Our integrity around the world has been put into deep,deep question. And as a result of all of that, we are now findingourselves in very, very serious trouble. If this kind of activityis allowed to go unquestioned, unexamined, as it is not beingexamined by the Congress, and the Congress should be examining it,if it continues to go unexamined, our whole democratic republic isput into jeopardy here and the future of this country is in serioustrouble. This need to be examined and that`s why we`re asking thespecial counsel for the attorney general to look into it.

OLBERMANN: Lastly and briefly, have you heard back from him yet?Do you expect to?

HINCHEY: No. We don`t expect to hear back from him. Hisinvestigation is independent. It was just our intention to bring tohis attention very pertinent facts. It is entirely likely that hewas very much aware of those facts already and may have been goingin that direction. Of course, we don`t know. But we felt anobligation as members of the Congress, because the Congress had beendeceived by this administration, and because the American peoplehave been deceived with this whole question of so-called weapons ofmass destruction, we felt an obligation to bring these matters tothe attention of the investigator in this case, Mr. Fitzgerald.

OLBERMANN: Representative Maurice Hinchey from the 22nd District ofNew York, thanks for talking with us tonight, sir.

Looks like we're going for the Big Casino here, Stripey1. The Niger yellowcake documents have been proven to be forgeries, likely from the Italian version of the CIA. This was a concerted, deliberate attempt to mislead our Congress, our people and the rest of the world about the possibility of WMDs in Iraq.

While I'm not sure that Patrick Fitgerald's investigation will go in that direction or have that wide a scope, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has called for a complete and comprehensive investigation...and he's the ranking member of the House Judiciary Commitee. Between Conyers and Hinchey, we just might stir this up sufficiently that SOMETHING will be done.

These blighters in the White House simply cannot be allowed to lie with impunity and go unchallenged. How many more of my tax dollars have to be flushed down that quagmire in the desert? How many more of our brave young soldiers have to die--now 2014 and counting!--before we hold the scoundrels accountable?!?